On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:56:40PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 03/06/2013 01:20 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >On 03/05/2013 07:18 PM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> >>On 03/06/2013 08:51 AM, Andrew Chew wrote:
> >>>The backlight enable regulator is specified in the device tree node for
> >>>backlight.
> >
> >>>diff --git a/include/linux/pwm_backlight.h
> >
> >>> struct platform_pwm_backlight_data {
> >>> int pwm_id;
> >>>+ struct regulator *en_supply;
> >>
> >>You should not have this here. Platform data is supposed to provide the
> >>necessary information for the driver to resolve the resource - not the
> >>resource itself.
> >...
> >>There is one catch though: in case you don't want to use a regulator,
> >>and thus have none defined, regulator_get() will return -EPROBE_DEFER,
> >>so you cannot distinguish between "no regulator needed" and "supplier
> >>not ready yet" and your driver will always *require* a regulator. So at
> >>the end of the day you might still need a "use_enable_regulator" in the
> >>platform data to explicitly ask for probe() to look for it. This
> >>variable would also be set by parse_dt() if the "enable-supply" property
> >>exists.
> >
> >A driver that requires a regulator always requires that regulator. If a
> >particular board doesn't have SW control over the power source, you're
> >supposed to provide a dummy (fixed) regulator so that the driver doesn't
> >care about the difference.
>
> That's good to know, thanks. So does this mean that Andrew should
> make the enable regulator mandatory and update current users to
> provide a dummy one?That would be the right thing to do. I was planning to move all users of pwm-backlight to use PWM lookup tables as well at some point (in order to get rid of the legacy pwm_request() calls), so maybe we can do both in one go. Thierry
pgpxSfGsp9BLS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
